June 16, 2011

Circumcision ban would be unconscionable

A San Francisco ballot initiative later this year proposes to criminalize the performance of circumcisions on male minors, with fines up to $1,000 and jail terms of up to one year. Even Russell Crowe has weighed in on the proposal via Twitter: "I love my Jewish friends, I love the apples and the honey and the funny little hats but stop cutting yr babies." Such a proposal smacks of religious ignorance at best, if not outright anti-religious animus.

For Jews, circumcision is the sign of the Abrahamic covenant as described in Genesis 17. It is a fundamental practice of the faith.

Muslims also circumcise their male children, the rite being roughly analogous (with some differences) to the significance of the practice among Jews. This is not a minor or optional thing; the practice is religiously mandated for those faith traditions.

Mormons are not bound by the same covenant requirements applicable to Jews. Many Mormon men are circumcised, but this is more a reflection of 20th century American culture and is not a religious requirement. I know from reading Mormon blogs that opinions on the advisability of circumcising infant sons run the gamut, which is simply a reflection of broader cultural differences of opinion on this question.

In terms of health there is a case to be made for circumcision, as well as a case to be made against it. Neither case is overwhelming, such that government health agencies do not formally recommend either circumcision or non-circumcision. The decision historically has been left up to the parents.

That is where I believe the decision point should remain. "Intactivists" are free to press their point of view by means of education and advocacy. But to take this decision away from parents by force of law, especially without a religious exemption, is unconscionable in my view. The ballot initiative should be rejected.

Posted at 02:04:15 PM

Comments

Would a ban on female circumcision be unconscionable? It's been in place since 1996, even though female circumcision is a Muslim tradition. Was it wrong to take the right to circumcise their daughters away from parents?
Say what you want about circumcision. It doesn't change the facts. The facts are that the foreskin and head are one piece at birth, fused together. Removing the foreskin is like peeling a carrot. Considering that the genitals are the most sensitive part of the human body, this amounts to torture. Even with anesthesia, with the head an open wound afterwards, salty urine hitting it must be agony after the anesthesia wears off.
Who does the penis belong to? The parents? Or the child, who gets to live with the results?
How much of your current genitalia would you like to keep? Zero percent?
Fifty percent? One hundred percent? Why should he not be allowed to make that decision? The average circumcision removes 50% of the skin of a penis, including the most sexually responsive parts.

Circumcision is not legal to do to a dog or cat. If you so much as draw a drop of blood from female genitals, you will do hard time under Federal law.
Why does human male circumcision get a free pass? Why is it the only thing doctors get away with disregarding, when ethics dictate, "First, do no harm"?
Does the human male really need surgery to clean himself? Why can a woman use a washcloth, but a man needs it cut off?
Why, when almost all European men have foreskins, are their rates of penile cancer, HIV, and HPV infections substantially lower than those of mostly circumcised Americans?

We can find a better way to welcome a boy into the world, than scarring him for life, and amputating a healthy body part. Otherwise, we are putting Judaism over Islam, and elevating girls to a protected status above boys. This legal sexism has to stop. Do we want to allow circumcision of girls? Or do we want to afford boys the same protection as girls?

Future Americans will probably look back on editorials like yours the way we now look back on editorials from the sixties advising against ending segregation. There are a few sacred cows that need to be brought to slaughter and this is one of them.

Perhaps a religious exemption will be necessary in this case. However, religious circumcisions represent a small fraction of the circumcisions that would be subject to this ban. What about the vast majority of parents and physicians who have no excuse at all for cutting the genitals of children? In my view, that is the primary question, despite the fact that religious concerns are getting all the attention.

"Such a proposal smacks of religious ignorance at best, if not outright anti-religious animus."

I disagree. As a society, we couldn't abide a religion that decided it's "fundamental practice of the faith" or entrance into the community was the cutting off of pinky toes, ears, or other non-essential appendages that neither enhance nor degrade one's quality of life. In a Jewish tradition, we probably also couldn't abide a widespread program of ritual animal sacrifice (not that any Jews are clamoring for such a thing, but I mention it to show how some Jewish religious practices have already been forced to change over time to accommodate changes in culture).

Although I tend to be a "live and let live" sort of person, in the case of circumcision I simply find no good argument that provides for an infant to undergo genital alteration (some would say mutilation) because his parents see it as an important part of their faith. As an individual with human rights separate from those of his parents, a young infant, toddler, boy, or even young man should not have his right to the alteration of his own body for whatever reason be taken away or claimed by another.

It is in these circumstances that these "inactivists" feel they must speak out against the practice, even as it prevents certain faith groups from being able to exercise their religious practices in full. In their view, the rights of the individual trump the will of their parents or any religious community, and they feel that society must step in to prevent those individual rights from being abrogated.

Tom, despite what the blurb above the comment box says, I as the author of the blog post do not approve comments, an editor at the Tribune does. Both of your comments have now been released.

I'm all for banning female circumcision. But male circumcision and female "circumcision" are two very different things. Equating them as you do has the potential to do great harm. After all, a sizable majority of American men have been circumcised, with no discernible adverse effect on their capacity to experience sexual pleasure, so if you portray male circumcision as no different from the total removal of the clitoris, you may inadvertently convey the message that female "circumcision" is similarly no big deal. Simply equating these practices as you do greatly weakens your argument, not strengthens it.

At the end of the day, the subject of the act is non-consenting infant. Since all mammals are born with a functioning prepuce, no "quack science" can justify that only humans are better off without this body part. Moreover, epidemiology from other developed nations, in particularly Canada, Australia and England show there are no medical reason for this "non-therapeutic" procedure. Given that this is a detriment to the victim, it will be proven to be assault and battery. The religious zealots and ignorant parents who believe that they have the right to subject their offspring to such a barbaric act will be shocked when this goes to the courts. In fact, I bet that Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan (both Jewish) will rule that the FGM bill will stand and that MGM is equally bad. Religious wackos and sex sadists, bring it on!

A Mormon blogger on the subject ought to quote Moroni 8:8 "The law of circumcision is done away in me."

But this is NOT a religious issue and should not be relegated solely to the mythology pages,

Foreskin amputation is a human rights violation, as surely as slitting the female hood is. (More surely, actually. The AAP said last May that male circumcison was more harmful than many forms of illegal female genital cutting, when they were making a pitch to let their members cut girls).

The reason the AAP won't forcefully condemn genital mutilation is obvious. Their members make a killing selling the unnecessary procedure. In Holland, where doctors are mostly paid to keep patients well instead of do billable procedures, the Royal Dutch Medical Association published the world's most up-to-date policy on circumcision in 2010. It says doctors must "actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications." They also make the case for outlawing circumcision.

NOT ONE national medical association on earth (not even Israel's) endorses routine circumcison.

I don't understand how Mormons justify circumcising thier boys. Isn't it unnecessary according to scripture?

Moroni 8:8

8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

Well said, Kevin. One quibble: I think the backers of this bill are pretty aware of the religious significance of circumcision to the Jews. Perhaps they simply do not want those religious sorts in their fair city. Consider the not-so-veiled anti-semitism in the comic drawn by the president of MGMBill.org:

What about the religion of the child who is having his genitals mutilated?

100+ kids die every year from circumcision complications in the U.S., and countless others are dealt horrific botch jobs. Mogen Clamp Corporation (one of the most popular genital mutilation tools) was bankrupted due to multiple huge lawsuits on this just last year.

It is well-documented that circumcision removes the five most sensitive parts of the penis, including 20,000+ erogenous nerve endings in the ¨Ridged Band¨ where the outer foreskin folds into the inner foreskin, and the frenulum. It also destroys the natural gliding action and protective functions of the foreskin.

How can we impose this atrocity upon a non-consenting individual and pretend it has anything to do with ¨religious freedom¨? What other body parts can we cut off in the name of religion?

It’s the same injury to the baby, no matter what his parents’ religion.

The real issue here isn’t religion, it is sexism. We protect girls from genital insult, and rightly so. The Federal female genital cutting law, which has no religious exemption for Muslims, prohibits even a pinprick to extract one drop of blood. Male genital cutting--aka circumcision--is certainly worse than that. We’ve come a long way with gender rights; let’s not perpetuate this harmful double standard.

These males are not permitted to have a say in how their body looks, works, and feels, making the forced genital cutting of boys a human rights violation. This is doubly important because it effects their sexuality, too.

I don't understand those quoting the Book of Mormon. This isn't a religious practice among Mormons, it's something that is practiced amongst Jews. I think a Mormon (or any American for that matter) can rightfully say they think this proposed ban is unconstitutional on the grounds it prohibits a religious group from practicing a component of their faith.

I am a Mormon man, active in my Church, and I despise that the fact that I was circumcised. Other than the scripture that has been cited from Moroni, the Mormon church has absolutely no position regarding circumcision. Under age circumcision is a barbaric, ignorant, brutal practice. I long for the day (coming soon) when the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional.

Would the ban still allow people to have their own bodies modified once they come of age? Might the Abrahamic covenant hold even more meaning if made by people themselves when they come of age rather than being made for them in infancy by their parents?

I'm for religious freedom, but I think there's a case to be made for children's bodies not being modified by the parents without the child's consent. In fact, it seems to me that all permanent body modifications be undertaken only with the full informed consent of a mature person who is to be the subject of the modification.

In the same way that we don't allow parents to decide to raise their children without education, say, or make other decisions that might permanently harm their children, I see a lot of justification for deciding any permanent body modifications or mutilation should be up to the child when he or she comes of age, and off limits for parents to inflict upon their children.

As someone who ended up medically needing to be circumcised at age 17, I can tell you, I MUCH would have rather had it done as an infant.

There are people who are genetically born with foreskins that are too small and cause health and hygiene problems later in life.

For this reason alone, this ban is a stupid idea. Let's see you try pulling your bandages off desperately trying to keep the stitches from catching. And shoving ice down your pants in the morning to keep the stitches from tearing out from the... umm... expansion.

Every last one of MY sons is getting circumcised as a baby. And it has NOTHING to do with religion. They'll thank me for it later in life.

How can you people support banning circumcision? You are clearly violating religious rights. Do any of you believe in the first amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That along with the other 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) are at the forefront of American freedom and our way of life. Banning circumcision blatantly violates a Jewish practice along with other Christian sects and Muslims who practice the ritual as well. This practice has been carried out for thousands of years without any serious consequence. In fact many doctors can describe benefits that come as a result of the procedure. No one has the right to tell people that they are not allowed to be circumcised or have their children circumcised just as I do not have the right to tell you what to do (especially in a case where it violates religious freedoms).

How can you claim to be a child of God and support the process that robs a helpless baby boy of his foreskin. If you read a story in a paper about parents holding down a child of 9 or 10, while he cried out 'no, no, no' and begged them for mercy, for the purpose of removing his foreskin you would condemn them for child abuse.

Yet when it comes to a helpless baby you support him being restrained and awake during a process that involves ripping the foreskin away from the head of the penis so a ring device can be inserted beneath the foreskin. For this the skin must be forced/stretched open. Once in place a clamp holds it there while special cutters cut the skin away. All this done under light sedation as the risk of full general is too high for newborns.

Im a surgical nurse and Jewish mother to two intact sons. I was once present for a circumcision in surgery and could not remain. I feel nothing but contempt for anyone who thinks THEIR right religion overrides a helpless right TO HIS OWN BODY!!!!!! If people think they need to cut children up to please GOD then they should start with cutting up their own bodies.

"Those who favor banning circumcism: How many of you would favor banning baptism if it was proposed in Israel or any Muslim-controlled country? "

No. Baptism wipes off. Circumcision does not. (It's got nothing to do with what they mean to the people who want to do them, everything to do with what they do to the person they are done to. In the case of baptism, nothing.)